The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) recently announced that, after a two-year review, they were sticking to their long-standing policy of excluding openly gay youth and adults as members and leaders. (This is in stark contrast to the Girl Scouts, who have no exclusionary membership policies around sexual preference.)

Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times broke an extremely troubling story about the BSA’s failure to prevent some known and suspected sexual predators from being scout leaders or volunteers, despite an awareness of their abusive behavior.

Examining recently released files from 1970 to 1991, the Times found “more than 125 cases across the country in which men allegedly continued to molest Scouts after the organization was first presented with detailed allegations of abusive behavior.” Some of these repeat offenses were attributed to “clerical errors, computer glitches or the Scouts’ failure to check their own “perversion files,” a confidential blacklist designed to identify potential predators. But the BSA also chronically failed to report complaints of abuse to law enforcement or child protective services.

Earlier disclosures and lawsuits had forced the BSA to create its well-respected Youth Protection program in the late 1980s, which includes criminal background checks of all leaders. There is no way to know for sure how well the Youth Protection program is doing, because the BSA has fought to keep their post-1991 files secret. However, the LA Times reports that it wasn’t until 2010 the BSA required reporting of suspected abuse to authorities, a reversal of prior policies.

Is there a connection between the BSA’s vigorous discrimination against gays and their long history of insufficient efforts to prevent sexual abuse of boys? We don’t know why the BSA continues to exclude gays and lesbians, aside from vague statements about role models and consistency with scouting values. But we do know that there is a fundamental confusion that is common in our society, a confusion that mistakenly equates homosexuality with pedophilia.

The difference is completely clear: Gay men are attracted to adult men, not to boys. Pedophiles are attracted to children—some to boys and some to girls. Sexual assault—we won’t minimize it by calling it “molestation”—is a crime because of lack of consent and abuse of power. Homosexuality between adults is consenting and not an abuse of power. If the Scouts believe they are protecting boys by excluding homosexual leaders, they are sorely mistaken.

Fortunately, attitudes about the supposed “danger” of homosexuals are changing. According to statistics compiled by the psychology department of UC-Davis, in a survey from 1970, more than 70% of respondents believed that “Homosexuals are dangerous as teachers or youth leaders because they try to get sexually involved with children.” By 1999, the belief that most gay men are likely to molest or abuse children was endorsed by only 19% of heterosexual men and 10% of heterosexual women. We suspect that this number has continued to decline, but we can’t be certain because researchers have now turned towards studying attitudes towards gay marriage—a topic unthinkable in the 1970s and even 1990s.

What we do know is that our country—thanks in large part to a younger generation that is more tolerant and less judgmental than their elders—is on the right path when it comes to ending exclusionary policies towards homosexuals. Both President Obama and Mitt Romney have opposed the BSA’s ban. If the BSA truly wants to “be prepared,” it would be wise to get with the times.

Cohen, PhD, is a licensed psychologist in Brookline, Mass. DeBenedet is a board-certified internist and gastroenterology fellow at the University of Michigan Health System. The views expressed are solely their own.

Cohen and DeBenedet co-authored The Art of Roughhousing: Good Old-Fashioned Horseplay and Why Every Kid Needs It.

Jesus Christ will have the last word and so will His Church, Jude 14,15, Revelation 19:11-21, Joel 2:1-11, concerning who will inherit the eternal earth. We are to tell the "LGBT" people to repent and accept what Christ did for them on the cross, regarding their sinful life's. The Church will leave for 7 years before they return with the Christ and during that time on earth the "LGBT" people's will be under Islamic Sharia Law and I'm warning them now, these people and their laws have no mercy for the "LGBT" people's, unlike the Christ. They will come with a sword to send everybody striaght to hell, because this is also their destiny, therefore "REPENT AND BELEIVE THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST". Brother Johnny Davis

So Cohen and Debenedet think that homosexuality is good, wholesome and normal and that the BSA is "backwards". Fine. It's a free country. They should go found a scouting organization that caters to homosexuals and pedophiles and enjoy themselves. But they have no right to come demanding that everyone "get with the times" and use the heavy hand of the Government to FORCE acceptance of that lifestyle on everyone else. I don't want my children in such an environment and that's MY right as a parent.

BSA has is right. They uphold the idea of not being involved with homosexual individuals because that is what God set forth. It is in the Bible MANY times that God does not agree with this and it is "an abonimation to Him." Yes, it is in there. People, tho, think they know better than the God who created them how life should be. He made us with free will, not to simply do as we please, but to recognize on our own how infinitely better his guidelines are than ours. I know there are going to be plenty of bloggers out there who will take offense to this and come up with a million reasons why they are smarter than God, but those of us, like the BSA, knows who holds salvation and who does not, and the wise follows the one who does.

The BSA are not mistakenly confusing homosexuality with pedophilia, it is a cynical and extremely calculated muddying of the waters to incite hatred of Gay men and youth. A despicable game play and unworthy of the fundamental spirit of the Scouts as it was meant to be. The exclusion of Atheists and Agnostics is a similarly cowardly policy designed to shut down intelligent discussion and debate, which is essential for the youth of the USA to grow into mature and well-rounded adults.

Whether you accept homosexuality as healthy or not, the Boy Scouts ban on homosexuals in leadership positions is reasonable and understandable. The Boy Scouts as an organization have chosen to maintain the traditional view that homosexuality is an unhealthy and morally dangerous behaviour, a position not all agree with anymore, but one I hope we all still can respect. (Tolerance applies not only to treating people of a different sexual with the same respect, but also those with different ideas, even those you might disagree with!) Since this is their stated and long-held belief, it would be absurd and self-contradictory for the Boy Scouts to accept open homosexuals in positions of leadership. If you think they are wrong on homosexuality, fine, persuade them otherwise, but don't force or expect them to contradict their own beliefs and compromise their integrity.

YOU SAID: " The Boy Scouts as an organization have chosen to maintain the traditional view that homosexuality is an unhealthy and morally dangerous behaviour, a position not all agree with anymore, but one I hope (we all) still can respect."

First, your post suggests an 'argument from tradition' which, infers that somehow it is 'the right' way, just because it has always been done that way. Doesn't necessarily make it 'the right' way.

If you were to google the numerous medical and professional groups that disagree with this 'traditional' view, or old way of thinking, you would find a very long list. *(It's late at night, and too tired to do all the cut n' paste of groups for you). However, suffice it to say that, as far as I'm aware of, virtually all of the top medical and professional associations in the 'present' agree. It's not a 'sickness' it's not a 'psychological problem' that needs to be 'treated, it's not some kind of 'moral deficiency.' The 'gay' doesn't need to be "prayed away." So, maybe the 'traditional' view needs to take a look at the 'present' and the latest research and facts.

YOU SAID: " (Tolerance applies not only to treating people of a different sexual with the same respect, but also those with different ideas, even those you might disagree with!) "

So, lets see... in essence, what you're saying is that LGBT's should just "tolerate" a segment of the populations **"intolerance."**, is that about right...? Got it.

You see since gays are often told they are less than human, not worthy of god's love because they are an abomination, don't deserve the same rights or equality in terms of the law that hetero's get, and are going to burn in hell forever... I think that, oh... after awhile they might become a bit pissed off at the **intolerance** of the people that believe this so-called traditional view, don't you think?

YOU SAID : " I hope (this *traditional* view) is one I hope that (*we all*) still can respect."

No, sorry...but an increasingly large amount of people in this country and the world *don't respect* this traditional view at all.

Your position makes me very afraid for people like me. I bear no ill-will toward people of homosexual orientation. I have done worse things. But I cannot condone that behavior, for their own sake: it is damaging to to themselves and the people around them, and so my good will toward homosexuals means warning them in good faith of their danger. But in "your" society of tolerance, I will not be tolerated. You won't even give me the dignity of respect, and to me, that will lead in only a few years, to laws and penalties for even thinking the way I do. If the two sides in this great culture war won't even respect each other while seeking to persuade, then this will not be a discussion of what's true, but a battle for power over the other. My side has had the power for centuries, and have abused that power often, I'll admit. But from your post, I don't think your side will be any less harsh and inflexible if you should "win". You will criminalize and persecute those who don't agree with you.Can you understand my fear, and do you see any other way out for our society?

YOU SAID: " I bear no ill-will toward people of homosexual orientation. I have done *worse* things.

ME--Your argument assumes that homosexual orientation is *bad* yet, again. However, it's good to know that you have "done 'worse' things" ?!?!? What are you talking about ?!?!?

YOU SAID: " I cannot condone that behavior, for their own sake: it is damaging to themselves and the people around them, and so my good will towards homosexuals means warning them in good faith of their danger."

ME: --O.K... apparently you're still not getting the truth and facts here. I suggested you look it up, but here... I did it for you.

Here is a (partial) listing of the Medical and Professional Groups, representing almost a half million (500,000) medical/professionals, that have over time, through 'clinical reasearch' and 'clinical experience' have taken the position that Homosexuality is 'not'... a 'mental disorder', 'moral deficiency' 'sickness', 'harmful' to themselves, nor society, nor... it is something that needs to be 'cured.'

***The American Academy of Pediatrics

***The American Counseling Association

***The American Psychiatric Association

***The American Psychological Association

***The American School Counselor Association

***The National Association of School Psychologists

***The National Association of Social Workers

So, -farmer... when you say "it is *damaging* and they are a *danger* to the themselves and the people around them"... what exactly are you talking about ?

YOU SAID: " Your position makes me very afraid for people like me. In "your" society of tolerance, I will not be tolerated. You won't even give me the dignity of respect, and to me, that will lead in only a few years, to laws and penalties for even thinking the way I do. If the two sides in this great culture war won't even respect each other while seeking to persuade, then this will not be a discussion of what's true, but a battle for power over the other. My side has had the power for centuries, and have abused that power often, I'll admit. But from your post, I don't think your side will be any less harsh and inflexible if you should "win". You will criminalize and persecute those who don't agree with you."

ME--So, I have provided research that support my opinions here, you have now gone off on a 'Red Herring' argument about somehow people that believe the way we do... somehow are going to 'criminalize' and 'persecute' you ?!?!? What the heck ?!?!?! So far, -farmer, you've have offered nothing in terms of research or anything, for that matter that directly shows that Homosexuals are 'harmful' 'sick' 'need to be cured' etc...

I think you might want to take a look at some of the Christians, and other religious groups that are actively trying to make 'laws' that don't allow gays the same stature in society as hetero's.

Bottom-line... You are still wanting gays, and the people that are on their side to be "tolerant" of the years, and years of "intolerance" and "bigotry" that has been thrown at them by people that believe in your position.

Finally... just realize that in some countries, homosexuals are imprisoned, ostracized, or even killed because of who they are.

Even in the U.S... they are still battling bullying, hate crimes, ignorance and people that are out to maintain or create laws that do actually 'harm' them either directly or indirectly.

No, what they are saying is that you are NOT BORN GAY. Guess what? They are right. You CHOOSE to be gay. (btw, before somebody says "when did you choose to be straight?", I did not. Being straight is being normal. You CHOOSE to be abnormal later on). Accept it. It IS a perverse and disgusting act. Go Scouts!!! I'm proud of you!

I find it very interesting that you even need to ask what is normal. Normal is what nature intended. It is pretty obvious that nature intended one man/one woman since any other way and our species would have died out a LONG time ago. Being gay IS a choice. Yes, some people do choose to be gay, just like some people choose to murder, start fires or any other behavior later in life. I am not comparing gay to murder (don't get your panties in an uproar), I am just saying that we make our choices, good or bad, as we age. Now, IF, some were born gay, it honestly would be no different than treating it as a birth defect. Than I wouldn't blame the person, but would treat him/her appropriately.

It is a shame the job our government schools are doing teaching civics . There is absolutely no such words as separation of church and state in the constitution . Google it and be educated . Thomas Jefferson wrote a private letter when he was out of office referring to the separation of church and state . The context was that we as a Christian nation did not want a national religion as England had . That is why the Puritans left to escape a government religion . Check that out also . The gay agenda of comparing themselves to blacks is ridiculous , blacks cannot change the color of their skin and cannot hide it , certainly not the case for gays . They are trying to become a special rights group based on sexual preference . The real risk in gay marriage is that it weakens the whole institution of marriage and will ultimately destroy it . Special rights for any group takes away the rights of others . Dont we have enough laws on the books referring to hate crimes for gays . It will be scary who else comes out and says they want special rights so God help this country the way it is going . Personally I welcome gays to explore Christianity , we love the individual as God does . be blessed

Homosexual marriage does not weaken traditional marriage. DIVORCE is the real threat to traditional marriage. Broken, divided families, children forced to choose between parents, the lack of cooperation in many of these divided families, and divorce of the parents vastly increasing the chance of the children also having divorces in their own marriages. These children don't get the benefits of watching their parents LEAD BY EXAMPLE.

What is it 48% or 52% of traditional marriages failing now? Why aren't churches discussing this much more often than the gay issues? The gay issue is simply a distraction. A divide and conquer method. A way to flush out opinions from everyone and mark those who dissent. Something to fuss about when it isn't nearly the threat they make it out to be. Unfortunately it is all too easy to draw parallels between pre-WWII Germany and the Jews and the way the right is behaving now putting so many of society's failures on the homosexuals. Scapegoats.

Always pick out someone powerless to fight back and who is perceived to be worse in some way than the supporters of your own point of view. Can't pick on typical suburban American problems b/c some of the very people standing behind the church have those very problems.

Want to discuss a real threat to our youth? Let's talk about the worst parts of American pop culture where personal responsibility is shunned, careful life planning is thrown out the window in favor of reckless sex leading to unplanned preganncies where babies are brought into the world without a budget and a life plan, without two parents working together, often without educations or now options for an education. Poor single moms b/c they made a reckless choice and their male (not a man, not a father) isn't part of their life with the new baby.

THAT is what the churches need to be worrying about but I suspect -having spent time with "strong" Christians- that the churches avoid those topics b/c they are careful not to alienate some of their own congregation and thus members who thithe which are very important in this era of deluxe lifestyle churches with all the bells and whistles (flat screens, deluxe AV systems, gymnasiums, a/c and so forth). These Christians who talk about all these societal issues sometimes spend millions on a church campus and so little (by comparison) on things that would really make a difference in their communities.

I counsel anyone who thinks they have too gays in their life to simply turn off the TV. Around here at least we have gay friends but most folks here are very discrete. EVERY mainstream TV show seems to have a gay character or two or three. If that bothers you turn off TV.

Joe, I respect your comments and agree that divorce is a destroyer of families . People in the Christian church watch too much television and end up copying the world and their morals ( or lack thereof) . As to accusation that Christians are like Nazis the reality is that the homosexual lobby copied Hitlers playbook for indoctrinating the youth starting years ago , thereby controlling the media' today . I personally watch zero television and agree with you that it is a poisonous wasteland , not just on the gay issue but indoctrinating our youth that the only truth that counts is their truth , whatever that is . I agree with the slippery slope argument against gay marriage that more deviant behaviors will become acceptable following in the wake of the gay marriage . This country has been blessed by God but it is pretty obvious that his blessings are being taken away , just open your eyes and see widespread drought and crop failure , this country borrowing money it can never pay back , the collapse of our economy and unemployment as a result and so on . I pray that the average American wakes up before this country is a third world country .

Atheists can be good people also , atheists can be bad people . You are right that there are professing Christians that are not Christian at all . I do not write off groups of people because atheists can be saved by God , Christians that are backsliders can also be saved . He decides whom he brings to himself . As a side note , communists are atheists owing their allegiance to the state , what is the communist track record on human rights ? Stalin , Mao , and the other failures . I am happy for you that you do good . When I do good , not all the time as you do , I do not brag about it , because if you brag about it , your reward is that other people may say good things about you . But as a Christian , I do good and only God knows , He will reward me in heaven . God bless you and all atheists .

The creator God has always existed , not in a form of mass . Your circular argument that a creator requires a creator is a shop worn tired bromide that atheists use . I will not cast any pearls before those whom are not interested in being saved . I know one day you will change your mind . Every knee will bow down to the Lord , yours included .

I too am an Eagle Scout and ashamed of the BSA's position. "Tolerance" should be added to the Scout Oath. It is conspicuously missing. "Once an Eagle, always an Eagle" may become a thing of the past, until the next generation of BSA leaders changes BSA policy.

So, if you are an Eagle Scout than 1) you either were honorable and did not lie about being gay, therefore CONFIRMING that you chose to be gay later on after the scouts or 2) you LIED because you believed you were gay even when you were an eagle scout. And since Eagle scouts aren't supposed to lie, you don't DESERVE to call your self such. You have disgraced the uniform.

He states he was/is an eagle scout and also ashamed of their position. He definitely puts it out there that he is a "gay" eagle scout, also. Most normal people don't like the idea of 'gays' being in their faces with their personal stuff. I suppose he might just be a regular person with these feelings. But I went with the assertion from his commetnts, and also the odds, that is what he meant. Either way, my comment is correct. Bottom line, the policy today is exactly the same as it was when he was an eagle scout. Either he believed with all his heart in what he swore to AS A SCOUT (which included these exclusions) or he just 'skipped' that part of his belief system in order to be in the pack. Not a very eagle scout thing to do.

I support BSA, Chick-Fil-A, and others who choose to take stand for their beliefs. Jesus died for all sinners to have a chance at salvation. The leaders of the organizations chose to follow their religious beliefs and not conform to society's perception of what is best for us. I stand with them and ask that you condemn us for our beliefs and stance. All sin is wrong. I am not perfect but I love all people and just because I chose not to accept what people think is equality and fair that doesn't make me a bigot. Love you and God bless you.

I don't support Chik, Papa Johns or other companies that want to preach to me as a customer. I react to them about the same way as the country preacher that cornered me with I was 12 years old and wanted to tell to me how I was a sinner, going to hell if I didn't accept Jesus, blah-bah-blah... I justed wanted the hateful old guy to leave me alone.

I don't have ANY interest in hearing about their religion or their politics.

BSA? Well, I voluntarily choose whether I want to hang out with those folks.

I support BSA and Chick-Fil-A in their stance against homosexuality. These people are not bigots because they believe differently. Jesus loved all people and hated sin. He died for to free all sinners from their if they choose to be delivered. Homosexuality, lesbianism and all acts of sexual immorality are sin. Don't hate those who choose to believe and folloow the Holy Bible. I love all people and I hate sin. I am not perfect but don't condemn us for not conforming to society's standards. Love you and God Bless you.

being gay is sin, a gay person is not someone different, no matter what anyone says it is a choice anything else is a lie. You definitely can say the fathers of this increasingly misguided generation are at fault. Not to have shown the right kind of love to their children so they turn to same sex relations. I am 100% sure homosexual people are internally distraught or totally lost in their habits and believed the lie for way to long because nowadays its okay to be gay just like saying it is okay to be addicted to drugs or porn.

Let me make this simple for you, Time.com. The Scouts exclude homosexuals, because homosexuality is immoral, perverse, and in complete contradiction of Scouting values. Scouts swear to do their best by God, so supporting homosexuality would be contradictory and very hypocritical. After all, homosexuality is condemned in the Bible as an abomination, and that teaching has not changed in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

So, quit your temper tantrum, and let the Scouts abide by their policies. If gays don't like it, they can start their own organization, and exclude Christians and other anti-gay heterosexuals. But, stop chastising the Scouts and other Christian organizations for abiding by their faith!

BSA doesn't require its members to be from the Judeo-Christian family of religions, just that its member believe in some sort of higher power. Your citing of the Bible is (as it is in nearly all cases) moot. Of course, the Mormons hijacked the organization years ago, so that's the dogma that's besieged the organization for awhile.

I did not say that the BSA required religious affiliation. Yet, the 'higher power' to which you refer is God. That 'God' is the same God of the Judeo-Christian religion. When they swear that they will, 'do their best by God [etc.], it's that same God. It follows that by doing their best by God, the Scouts do their best to live moral lives. That morality follows from the Judeo-Christian religion. Otherwise, why else would homosexuality be banned by the BSA? If it wasn't for a religious reason, the ban would not make sense. The likeliest explanation is that the BSA is still following the religious tradition, and not going with the secular whims of society.

Also, your prior post contained a referenced part of the KJV translation. You are right - many things in Leviticus are labeled as 'abominations' (according to KJV). However, in NIV, they are instead labeled as 'detestable.' The New Living Translation calls homosexuality a, 'detestable sin' (quite close to NIV).

The main point is that regardless of the translation, homosexuality is condemned across the board in the Judeo-Christian tradition. So, it's not a matter of desperation at all.

Your comment is terribly misleading. In Leviticus, only homosexuals and homosexuality are specifically termed as 'abominations.' All other immoralities and misdeeds are labelled differently. Therefore, your comment about there being, 'lots of abominations in Scripture [of which Leviticus is a part]' is false.

Furthermore, your comment that I'm 'picking and choosing' is also made false as well. I'm only referring to homosexuals and homosexuality as an abomination (following Leviticus). Your comment that I'm referring to anything else is presumptuous and unfounded.

All from the KJV translation (because the occurrence of "abomination" partially depended on the whim of the monarch who commissioned the translation at the time):

Levicitus 19:7, eating a sacrifice 3 days after you kill it is an abomination. Leviticus 18:26-30, suggests everything listed in chapter 18 is an abomination. Leviticus 11:10, shellfish are an abomination (along with all sealife without fins). Leviticus 11:13, eating birds of prey is an abomination.

Maybe you should look closer at the book to which you so desperately cling.

To be very clear, I did not borrow from the Hitler Youth Organization. How dare you make such an inaccurate and ridiculous insinuation that my comment was motivated by Nazi propaganda. You offer zero evidence to substantiate your claim and zero explanation.

I therefore outright reject your claim as utter nonsense, and will demand a public retraction. The Nazis were cold, calculating monsters, responsible for the deaths of millions of people (including 2/3 of Europe's Jews). How dare you tie me in with that group. I am merely arguing for the right of the Scouts to abide by their practices, and for the right of homosexuals to establish their own organization if the Scouts truly displease them. I am in no way, shape, or form advocating for discrimination or terror campaigns against them (like the Nazis did against European minorities).Again, I am calling on you to retract your comment, or (at minimum) offer a thorough substantiation. Until you do, SHAME ON YOU for posting such an awful comment.